I may lose all of my revenue because of COPPA and i dont know what to do. this feels like a nightmare.

[Drak3]

2 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

you make it out like 100% that a creator is going to stream a game and be fined millions. Do you honestly believe thats going to happen?

Yes. The FTC stated that that is exactly that they're going to start doing January 2020 if this change to COPPA passes.

 

2 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

And like i have said. just like many half ass law before this it will be adjusted.

This is the finalized version going up for vote. There will be no adjustment if voted in when December rolls around.

[RonnieOP]

1 minute ago, Kawaii Koneko said:

True. Basically, this has a large potential for misapplication.

 

We haven't even gotten into intentional abuse to silence critics or those of the wrong political persuasion.

 

And you really think that will happen? You honestly trust the government to work this out? You honestly think once all the profits from those massive fines start rolling in that they are going to try to do the right thing?

 

Freedom of expression is perfectly interchangeable with freedom of speech. Same thing.

 

This law is essentially doing that. Preventing you from speaking freely, whether that be opinion or some stupid crude animation regarding a topic that will have cross interest between adults and children by issuing massive fines is restricting your First Amendment right.

 

 

No freedom of expression is in no way interchangeable with freedom of speech. its not the same thing. Expression can mean basically anything. From speech to punching. Hence why you have no freedom of expression. There was actually a court case about that because someone was doing something illegal and said thats how they express themselves and under the first amendment (i believe it was one of Tim Pools channels that covered it but i could be mistaken).

 

Yes i do think that will happen. history has shown us that will happen. like i said the ACLU would be over that in a heartbeat and it would be all over the news. The government does alot of crap things but they also do some good things. For example the government in certain states stepped in and made new laws over how much cities could give for traffic tickets and how much of their funding could come from said traffic tickets. Perfect example of the government doing the right thing even though it loses them money. And thats just one example. The government has ruled against plenty of laws that in turn took away a means of generating money. Recently the government came out and dismissed a crap load or charges that wouldve made them a pretty penny. Theres a vague gun law that regulates what constitutes a gun. and that was the receiver. and they had alot of laws and regulations when it came to that. A business selling AR15s broke some of those regulations. well with AR15s they have 2. an upper and lower receiver. So the current law was too vague and the judge threw out the charges.

 

Its perfectly fine to be skeptical of the government. I am all the time. But you can not deny that the government has also told law makers to get their shit together and fix their laws.

[RonnieOP]

9 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Yes. The FTC stated that that is exactly that they're going to start doing January 2020 if this change to COPPA passes.

 

This is the finalized version going up for vote. There will be no adjustment if voted in when December rolls around.

 

It does not matter if its passed in a vote, or even singed into law. Laws get ammended all the time. They are never set in stone. Thats not how laws work. Even if the vote passes and its signed in to law it can be appealed and halted. It happens all the time.

[redbread123]

4 hours ago, RonnieOP said:

Theres no way to assure that kids are not going to see it though.

 

Outside of providing things like SSN, ID, Birth Certificate how would youtube/google be able to verify if a user is an adult or not?

well the point is to not advertise child unfriendly content to children... thats the parents job. Think about why do all pornographic sites not have that? if they sort of appeal to children (Woman cosplaying as an avengers sucking whatever) what's the difference. The whole concept of the policy is stupid nothing else

[amdorintel]

maybe its time to get a real job, whatever that is

1 hour ago, RonnieOP said:

For example in my state technically cohabitation is illegal. if you are a man living with a woman and you are not married that is illegal.

there are lots of states with very stupid, archaic laws, like no one can work on a sunday. the government is too stupid to take those dumb laws off the books.

 

1 hour ago, RonnieOP said:

And tbh i think alot of you are expecting the worse without any real evidence to show that it will happen

welcome to the internet lol

 

gotta bitch about sumtin

[RonnieOP]

15 minutes ago, redbread123 said:

well the point is to not advertise child unfriendly content to children... thats the parents job. Think about why do all pornographic sites not have that? if they sort of appeal to children (Woman cosplaying as an avengers sucking whatever) what's the difference. The whole concept of the policy is stupid nothing else

how is not advertising something child unfriendly to children the parents job?

 

We dont advertise things....

 

Look im not defending shit parents that dont pay attention to their kids. But if you think someones a shit parent because they dont automatically assume that "kid friendly" sites are going to be showing porn then thats just a retarded statement.

 

Like i said the law will need to be more detailed. Just like many vague laws before it there will be reform to this one if it passes.

 

But you cannot blame COPPA and the government in general for trying to protect children. like ive said many times. you dont blame the health department for protecting you from eating unsafe products. you dont blame the FDIC for protecting your savings, etc.

 

The law has good intentions but needs to be refined. which will happen.

 

but to be honest. i do not really care if some content creators get the raw end of the deal. If you decided you were not going to try and develop any sort of skill to help you in life other then making videos for a private company....well you are just dumb and thats noones fault but your own.

 

 

[Drak3]

1 minute ago, RonnieOP said:

But if you think someones a shit parent because they dont automatically assume that "kid friendly" sites are going to be showing porn then thats just a retarded statement.

Assuming Youtube is "kid friendly," or any site with USER GENERATE CONTENT is just idiotic. And thinking someone that doesn't do their job as a parent is a shitty parent is fairly common sense.

 

2 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

But you cannot blame COPPA and the government in general for trying to protect children.

Yes, we can. Do you know the end result of these laws? They ultimately don't work for the supposedly intended goals.

Unsupervised and poorly parented kids will still watch all the inappropriate content they want. It just won't be on YouTube.

 

But instead, the thousands of channels targetting audiences older than kids, will be criminalized. The FTC has already stated that they are going to start suing and fining content creators whose videos appeal to kids starting 2020 if their updated COPPA passes.

Not target kids. Appeal to them.

 

That means Markiplier.

That means Game Theory.

That means Screen Rant.

That means Mondo Media.

That means LinusTechTips.

That means Donut Media.

That means Paramount Pictures.

And every other channel that gets views from kids.

 

2 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

ike ive said many times. you dont blame the health department for protecting you from eating unsafe products. you dont blame the FDIC for protecting your savings, etc.

Repeating false equivalencies isn't going to make them equivalent.

The health department doesn't protect me from eating unsafe products. It protects me from being sold unsafe products that I'm told are safe.

The FDIC doesn't protect my savings. It prevents banks and credit unions from offering me a way to save money, and not following through.

Both situations, the thing you falsely say government is stopping, isn't being stopped in any capacity. I can let my food rot and then eat it, I can throw away money on lootboxes. The regulations just stop companies from entering implied contracts with no intention of upholding their side of the bargain or lying to consumers.

[Drak3]

8 hours ago, spartaman64 said:

better put more swears and blood in your videos so the FTC wont think its for kids then 

Doesn't work like that. The proposed law is that if your video just appeals to kids, then you are making videos for kids in the eyes of the FTC.

[RonnieOP]

12 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Assuming Youtube is "kid friendly," or any site with USER GENERATE CONTENT is just idiotic. And thinking someone that doesn't do their job as a parent is a shitty parent is fairly common sense.

 

Yes, we can. Do you know the end result of these laws? They ultimately don't work for the supposedly intended goals.

Unsupervised and poorly parented kids will still watch all the inappropriate content they want. It just won't be on YouTube.

 

But instead, the thousands of channels targetting audiences older than kids, will be criminalized. The FTC has already stated that they are going to start suing and fining content creators whose videos appeal to kids starting 2020 if their updated COPPA passes.

Not target kids. Appeal to them.

 

That means Markiplier.

That means Game Theory.

That means Screen Rant.

That means Mondo Media.

That means LinusTechTips.

That means Donut Media.

That means Paramount Pictures.

And every other channel that gets views from kids.

 

Repeating false equivalencies isn't going to make them equivalent.

The health department doesn't protect me from eating unsafe products. It protects me from being sold unsafe products that I'm told are safe.

The FDIC doesn't protect my savings. It prevents banks and credit unions from offering me a way to save money, and not following through.

Both situations, the thing you falsely say government is stopping, isn't being stopped in any capacity. I can let my food rot and then eat it, I can throw away money on lootboxes. The regulations just stop companies from entering implied contracts with no intention of upholding their side of the bargain or lying to consumers.

"The health department doesn't protect me from eating unsafe products. It protects me from being sold unsafe products that I'm told are safe."

 

Oh really? so your ok with the government stepping in to keep you from being told your eating something safe while being served something unsafe? But your not ok with the government stepping in to keep people from claiming kid friendly content and showing something not kid friendly?

 

"The regulations just stop companies from entering implied contracts with no intention of upholding their side of the bargain or lying to consumers."

 

Kinda like punishing creators who imply kid friendly content with no intentions of upholding that and lying to customers?

 

You just showed what a hypocrite you are being.

 

You keep talking like you know whats going to happen "These channels will be criminalized", You dont know whats going to happen. Theres no way you can know whats going to happen because it hasnt happened yet.

 

I bet you were one of those people who said that the second net neutrality ended it was going to be horrific. Well its been over a year....what has happened?

 

Again. if they go after a channel like LTT with some vauge BS and try to fine them millions it will be challenged in court and more then likely the law will be changed. it has happened over and over again throughout history. Have you never heard of the ACLU and other companies like that?

 

[Drak3]

7 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

so your ok with the government stepping in to keep you from being told your eating something safe while being served something unsafe? But your not ok with the government stepping in to keep people from claiming kid friendly content and showing something not kid friendly?

If individual content creators are committing false advertisement, you go after them directly with the laws on the books that already deal with false advertisement.

 

That is not what hundreds of thousands of channels are doing.

 

What COPPA's proposed update does, is it classifies ALL content that appeals to kids as being made for kids. It does not matter that the content is age restricted. It does not matter that there are in your face disclaimers.

4 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

You keep talking like you know whats going to happen "These channels will be criminalized", You dont know whats going to happen. Theres no way you can know whats going to happen because it hasnt happened yet.

The FTC's announcement. They will start going after creators in the start of 2020. I've said this multiple times.

 

5 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

Again. if they go after a channel like LTT with some vagye BS and try to fine them millions it will be challenged in court and more then likely the law will be changed. it has happened over and over again throughout history.

FTC rules are not held to the same scrutiny as laws. Hence why they overseen by a committee independent of Congress. Nor are the fines settled in the same way. The FTC sues, and courts decide the merits of the FTC's case and rules on a case by case basis. The odds of the new rules being overturned is slim, unless the entire law is thrown out like previous failed laws. These commissions don't operate identically to the rest of government.

 

And even if the rules were overturned, that is a slow process. Too slow to keep hundreds of thousands of small content creators closing up shop and losing their jobs. But you already admitted you don't care about them.

1 hour ago, RonnieOP said:

but to be honest. i do not really care if some content creators get the raw end of the deal.

 

[RonnieOP]

6 hours ago, Drak3 said:

If individual content creators are committing false advertisement, you go after them directly with the laws on the books that already deal with false advertisement.

 

That is not what hundreds of thousands of channels are doing.

 

What COPPA's proposed update does, is it classifies ALL content that appeals to kids as being made for kids. It does not matter that the content is age restricted. It does not matter that there are in your face disclaimers.

The FTC's announcement. They will start going after creators in the start of 2020. I've said this multiple times.

 

FTC rules are not held to the same scrutiny as laws. Hence why they overseen by a committee independent of Congress. Nor are the fines settled in the same way. The FTC sues, and courts decide the merits of the FTC's case and rules on a case by case basis. The odds of the new rules being overturned is slim, unless the entire law is thrown out like previous failed laws. These commissions don't operate identically to the rest of government.

 

And even if the rules were overturned, that is a slow process. Too slow to keep hundreds of thousands of small content creators closing up shop and losing their jobs. But you already admitted you don't care about them.

 

"If individual content creators are committing false advertisement, you go after them directly with the laws on the books that already deal with false advertisement."

 

And i could say the same thing about the health department. If you get sick from eating unsafe products you can press charges and sue them. So why do we need the health department? Your arguments on why COPPA is bad and why other agencies are good still isnt logical.

 

Everything you have said is basically an assumption.

 

The FTC does not have free reign to do whatever the hell it wants. They do not have that power. Thats not how this country works. There is not a single entity that has absolute power. We have a system of checks and balances.

 

Again you do not know whats going to happen. Stop trying to act like you do. Could things go as bad as you say? In theory. yes. Its highly unlikely though. Whats more likely is like is that even if it passes the vote nothing happens to 90% of people and the second it happens to a few theres going to challenges and courts will decide the rules are to vague and it gets adjusted. Which history has shown us happens all the time.

 

Again ill point you to net neutrality. A bunch of people were expecting the worst of the worst. What ended up happening? Basically nothing.

 

 

[redbread123]

10 hours ago, Drak3 said:

Doesn't work like that. The proposed law is that if your video just appeals to kids, then you are making videos for kids in the eyes of the FTC.

that makes the whole thing retarded.

[Mark Kaine]

16 hours ago, Kawaii Koneko said:

Having them get a job outside of YouTube because parents want excuses not to have to do their job. Just screw all the hardship and economic burden this will place on people. As long as it means parents don't have to make the decision to take YouTube away. Seems legit.

 

If you are concerned about the content on YouTube or any other platform, then you need to make the decision as to whether your kids will be allowed to use it or not. Expecting the government to intervene and put even more regulation in place that will stifle innovation and creativity is not the answer.

On the other hand,  everyone with a brain could see the yt bubble burst sooner or later and people should actually try to get a job "outside yt" .

 

These practices should not be supported any longer and yt is basically nothing but a huge hellhole everyone should let die already. 

 

Yes, parents not parenting is an issue,  but yt as a whole is an issue too, so why support it. 

 

How many people *actually*  make their living broadcasting on yt btw - I kinda feel the importance is - hopefully - blown out of proportion like so many other things on the internet are. 

 

 

PS: I mean no harm to the OP, obviously,  just kinda trying to point out the obvious - it was a long time coming and relying on Google to make ends meet was never going to turn out so great for the vast majority,  I hope the OP can find some sort of substitute to continue their streaming career,  however unlikely or undesirable in my opinion this is.   

 

Twitch is even worse (owned by Amazon btw, so not too surprising either) 

 

 

We would really need a streaming and upload platform independent of the huge corporations,  that would be a possible long term solution,  huge corporations are not your friends no matter how much anyone is fanboying them.